Throughout the testing today, the GeForce GTX 465's were able to outperform the XFX Radeon HD 5830.
Frostbyte wrote:I guess the idle power consumption numbers are with a single monitor attached? Is it as bad as the 470 and 480 with two attached?
Computer Ed wrote:While I do not disagree with your overall conclusion there are a few off statements. The 465 did not beat the 5830 in every test.Throughout the testing today, the GeForce GTX 465's were able to outperform the XFX Radeon HD 5830.
The 5830 did beat the 465 in the Aliens vs Predator test and in the 3D Mark test the 5830 did have higher GPU scores. The pricing right now keeps the 5830 competitive but only barely, since you can get 5830s for right at $200. However as the 465 price drops it will become the card at price point to buy for sure.
I am also curious why you are still using 1280x1024 for any kind of reasonbale performance judgement. Anyone buying this level of video card is not likely to play anything at that resolution. Yet with this in mind it is the benchmark you used to define a lead fro the 465. Citing that the 465 gained almost 20FPS at this resolution in Dirt II thus overstating it's gains by nealry double at a realistic playing resolution.
Again I am not disagreeing that the Fermi architecture is not a better choice for DX11 gaming. They have done a great job of taking the DX11 features and maximizing performance in this GPU with it, far and away passing ATIs efforts to date. However some of the comments seem to be sensationalized and thus out of place in an otherwise solid review.
Your right! Some of us have 24" monitors and game @ 1920x1200.Apoptosis wrote:We run 1280 x 1024 as that resolution is still rather popular for gaming around the world. Not many people have 30" monitors.
Users browsing this forum: Coughie and 1 guest